Hi,
I do not really post that often so apologies for any in-correctness.
Just a suggestion; how about some reputation based value for a general that has some impact on a battle and is also impacted by the outcome of the battle. At the moment, there is no penalties (other than time) on a general for a failure and this seems a little odd to me.
The adoption of such a system would reward players for successes of their armies and punish them for failing... ultimately, a general with a poor reputation (from losing many battles) could take more time to recover and have no additional impact on a battle. Whilst a general with a good reputation (from winning many battles) would recover more quickly (after a loss) and have additional impact on a battle
An issue with this reputation approach, I would imagine, is the no. of generals that would be required for waves of armies (as appears to be needed for battles with bosses) - however, this could be easily addressed by reputation also having a impact on the size of an army. i,e the default setting would be as is (200) and with success this no. increases, whilst a loss would have a negative impact on the army size (e.g. -10 troops)
This may also be be useful for future pvp as well, with the reputation (with the subsequent size of army) of a general being used to establish a ranking system for pvp.
Any way, just a thought and please no flaming; I am sensitive soul